Republic v. City of Davao, G.R. No.

148622, 12 September 2002

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 148622. September 12, 2002]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by HON. HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ, in his
capacity as Secretary of the DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES (DENR), CLARENCE L. BAGUILAT, in his capacity as the Regional Executive
Director of DENR-Region XI and ENGR. BIENVENIDO L. LIPAYON, in his capacity as the
Regional Director of the DENR-ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BUREAU (DENREMB), Region XI, petitioners, vs. THE CITY OF DAVAO, represented by BENJAMIN C. DE
GUZMAN, City Mayor, respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

Before us is a petition for review [1] on certiorari assailing the decision [2] dated May 28, 2001 of
the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, which granted the writ of mandamus and
injunction in favor of respondent, the City of Davao, and against petitioner, the Republic,
represented by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). The trial court
also directed petitioner to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage in favor of respondent.
i

ii

The antecedent facts of the case are as follows:

On August 11, 2000, respondent filed an application for a Certificate of Non-Coverage (CNC)
for its proposed project, the Davao City Artica Sports Dome, with the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB), Region XI. Attached to the application were the required
documents for its issuance, namely, a) detailed location map of the project site; b) brief project
description; and c) a certification from the City Planning and Development Office that the
project is not located in an environmentally critical area (ECA). The EMB Region XI denied the
application after finding that the proposed project was within an environmentally critical area
and ruled that, pursuant to Section 2, Presidential Decree No. 1586, otherwise known as the
Environmental Impact Statement System, in relation to Section 4 of Presidential Decree No,
1151, also known as the Philippine Environment Policy, the City of Davao must undergo the
environmental impact assessment (EIA) process to secure an Environmental Compliance
Certificate (ECC), before it can proceed with the construction of its project.
Believing that it was entitled to a Certificate of Non-Coverage, respondent filed a petition for
mandamus and injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Davao, docketed as Civil Case No.
28,133-2000. It alleged that its proposed project was neither an environmentally critical project
nor within an environmentally critical area; thus it was outside the scope of the EIS system.
Hence, it was the ministerial duty of the DENR, through the EMB-Region XI, to issue a CNC in
favor of respondent upon submission of the required documents.

The Regional Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of respondent, the dispositive portion of
which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious, judgment granting the writ of mandamus
and injunction is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioner City of Davao and against
respondents Department of Environment and Natural Resources and the other respondents by:
1)
directing the respondents to issue in favor of the petitioner City of Davao a Certificate of
Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1586 and related laws, in connection with
the construction by the City of Davao of the Artica Sports Dome;
2)

making the preliminary injunction issued on December 12, 2000 permanent.

Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

iii

[3]

The trial court ratiocinated that there is nothing in PD 1586, in relation to PD 1151 and Letter of
Instruction No. 1179 (prescribing guidelines for compliance with the EIA system), which
requires local government units (LGUs) to comply with the EIS law. Only agencies and
instrumentalities of the national government, including government owned or controlled
corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities are mandated to go through the
EIA process for their proposed projects which have significant effect on the quality of the
environment. A local government unit, not being an agency or instrumentality of the National
Government, is deemed excluded under the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The trial court also declared, based on the certifications of the DENR-Community Environment
and Natural Resources Office (CENRO)-West, and the data gathered from the Philippine
Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), that the site for the Artica Sports Dome
was not within an environmentally critical area. Neither was the project an environmentally
critical one. It therefore becomes mandatory for the DENR, through the EMB Region XI, to
approve respondents application for CNC after it has satisfied all the requirements for its
issuance. Accordingly, petitioner can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue the CNC, if
it refuses to do so.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, however, the same was denied. Hence, the instant
petition for review.
With the supervening change of administration, respondent, in lieu of a comment, filed a
manifestation expressing its agreement with petitioner that, indeed, it needs to secure an ECC for
its proposed project. It thus rendered the instant petition moot and academic. However, for the
guidance of the implementors of the EIS law and pursuant to our symbolic function to educate
the bench and bar, [4] we are inclined to address the issue raised in this petition.
iv

Section 15 of Republic Act 7160, [5] otherwise known as the Local Government Code, defines a
local government unit as a body politic and corporate endowed with powers to be exercised by it
v

in conformity with law. As such, it performs dual functions, governmental and proprietary.
Governmental functions are those that concern the health, safety and the advancement of the
public good or welfare as affecting the public generally. [6] Proprietary functions are those that
seek to obtain special corporate benefits or earn pecuniary profit and intended for private
advantage and benefit. [7] When exercising governmental powers and performing governmental
duties, an LGU is an agency of the national government. [8] When engaged in corporate
activities, it acts as an agent of the community in the administration of local affairs. [9]
vi

vii

viii

ix

Found in Section 16 of the Local Government Code is the duty of the LGUs to promote the
peoples right to a balanced ecology. [10] Pursuant to this, an LGU, like the City of Davao, can not
claim exemption from the coverage of PD 1586. As a body politic endowed with governmental
functions, an LGU has the duty to ensure the quality of the environment, which is the very same
objective of PD 1586.
x

Further, it is a rule of statutory construction that every part of a statute must be interpreted with
reference to the context, i.e., that every part must be considered with other parts, and kept
subservient to the general intent of the enactment. [11] The trial court, in declaring local
government units as exempt from the coverage of the EIS law, failed to relate Section 2 of PD
1586 [12] to the following provisions of the same law:
xi

xii

WHEREAS, the pursuit of a comprehensive and integrated environmental protection program

necessitates the establishment and institutionalization of a system whereby the exigencies of
socio-economic undertakings can be reconciled with the requirements of environmental quality;
x x x.
Section 1. Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to attain and maintain a rational
and orderly balance between socio-economic growth and environmental protection.
xxx

xxx

xxx

Section 4. Presidential Proclamation of Environmentally Critical Areas and Projects. The

President of the Philippines may, on his own initiative or upon recommendation of the National
Environmental Protection Council, by proclamation declare certain projects, undertakings or
areas in the country as environmentally critical. No person, partnership or corporation shall
undertake or operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first
securing an Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative. For the proper management of said critical project or area, the President may by
his proclamation reorganize such government offices, agencies, institutions, corporations or
instrumentalities including the realignment of government personnel, and their specific functions
and responsibilities.
Section 4 of PD 1586 clearly states that no person, partnership or corporation shall undertake or
operate any such declared environmentally critical project or area without first securing an
Environmental Compliance Certificate issued by the President or his duly authorized
representative. [13] The Civil Code defines a person as either natural or juridical. The state and
xiii

its political subdivisions, i.e., the local government units [14] are juridical persons. [15]
Undoubtedly therefore, local government units are not excluded from the coverage of PD 1586.
xiv

xv

Lastly, very clear in Section 1 of PD 1586 that said law intends to implement the policy of the
state to achieve a balance between socio-economic development and environmental protection,
which are the twin goals of sustainable development. The above-quoted first paragraph of the
Whereas clause stresses that this can only be possible if we adopt a comprehensive and
integrated environmental protection program where all the sectors of the community are
involved, i.e., the government and the private sectors. The local government units, as part of the
machinery of the government, cannot therefore be deemed as outside the scope of the EIS
system. [16]
xvi

The foregoing arguments, however, presuppose that a project, for which an Environmental
Compliance Certificate is necessary, is environmentally critical or within an environmentally
critical area. In the case at bar, respondent has sufficiently shown that the Artica Sports Dome
will not have a significant negative environmental impact because it is not an environmentally
critical project and it is not located in an environmentally critical area. In support of this
contention, respondent submitted the following:
1.
Certification from the City Planning and Development Office that the project is not
located in an environmentally critical area;
2.
Certification from the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENROWest) that the project area is within the 18-30% slope, is outside the scope of the NIPAS (R.A.
7586), and not within a declared watershed area; and
3.
Certification from PHILVOCS that the project site is thirty-seven (37) kilometers
southeast of the southernmost extension of the Davao River Fault and forty-five (45) kilometers
west of the Eastern Mindanao Fault; and is outside the required minimum buffer zone of five (5)
meters from a fault zone.
The trial court, after a consideration of the evidence, found that the Artica Sports Dome is not
within an environmentally critical area. Neither is it an environmentally critical project. It is
axiomatic that factual findings of the trial court, when fully supported by the evidence on record,
are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal. [17] This Court is not a trier of
facts. [18]
xvii

xviii

There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual findings of the trial court,
namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or
conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; c) where
there is a grave abuse of discretion; d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of
facts; e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both
appellant and appellee; g) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the
trial court; h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on
which they are based; i) when the finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the

supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and j) when the
Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and
which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. [19] None of these exceptions,
however, obtain in this case.
xix

The Environmental Impact Statement System, which ensures environmental protection and
regulates certain government activities affecting the environment, was established by Presidential
Decree No. 1586. Section 2 thereof states:
There is hereby established an Environmental Impact Statement System founded and based on
the environmental impact statement required under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1151, of
all agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities, for every proposed
project and undertaking which significantly affect the quality of the environment.
Section 4 of PD 1151, on the other hand, provides:
Environmental Impact Statements. Pursuant to the above enunciated policies and goals, all
agencies and instrumentalities of the national government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, as well as private corporations, firms and entities shall prepare, file and
include in every action, project or undertaking which significantly affects the quality of the
environment a detailed statement on
(a)

the environmental impact of the proposed action, project or undertaking

(b)
any adverse environmental effect which cannot be avoided should the proposal be
implemented
(c)

alternative to the proposed action

(d)
a determination that the short-term uses of the resources of the environment are
consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term productivity of the same; and
(e)
whenever a proposal involves the use of depletable or nonrenewable resources, a finding
must be made that such use and commitment are warranted.
Before an environmental impact statement is issued by a lead agency, all agencies having
jurisdiction over, or special expertise on, the subject matter involved shall comment on the draft
environmental impact statement made by the lead agency within thirty (30) days from receipt of
the same.
Under Article II, Section 1, of the Rules and Regulations Implementing PD 1586, the declaration
of certain projects or areas as environmentally critical, and which shall fall within the scope of
the Environmental Impact Statement System, shall be by Presidential Proclamation, in
accordance with Section 4 of PD 1586 quoted above.

Pursuant thereto, Proclamation No. 2146 was issued on December 14, 1981, proclaiming the
following areas and types of projects as environmentally critical and within the scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement System established under PD 1586:
A.

Environmentally Critical Projects

I.

Heavy Industries

d.

a.
Non-ferrous metal industries
b.
Iron and steel mills
c.
Petroleum and petro-chemical industries including oil and gas
Smelting plants

II.

Resource Extractive Industries

b.

a.
Major mining and quarrying projects
Forestry projects

6.

1.
2.
3.
forests
4.
5.
Grazing

c.

Fishery Projects

1.

Dikes for/and fishpond development projects

III.

Infrastructure Projects

Logging
Major wood processing projects
Introduction of fauna (exotic-animals) in public/private
Forest occupancy
Extraction of mangrove products

a.

d.

Major dams
b.
Major power plants (fossil-fueled, nuclear fueled, hydroelectric
or geothermal)
c.
Major reclamation projects
Major roads and bridges

B.

Environmentally Critical Areas

1.

All areas declared by law as national parks, watershed reserves, wildlife

preserves and sanctuaries;
2. Areas set aside as aesthetic potential tourist spots;
3.
Areas which constitute the habitat for any endangered or threatened species
of indigenous Philippine Wildlife (flora and fauna);
4. Areas of unique historic, archaeological, or scientific interests;

5. Areas which are traditionally occupied by cultural communities or tribes;

6.
Areas frequently visited and/or hard-hit by natural calamities (geologic
hazards, floods, typhoons, volcanic activity, etc.);
7. Areas with critical slopes;
8. Areas classified as prime agricultural lands;
9. Recharged areas of aquifers;
10.
Water bodies characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions;
a.

c.

tapped for domestic purposes

b.
within the controlled and/or protected areas declared by
appropriate authorities
which support wildlife and fishery activities

11.

Mangrove areas characterized by one or any combination of the following conditions:

a.
b.
c.
e.

with primary pristine and dense young growth;

adjoining mouth of major river systems;
near or adjacent to traditional productive fry or fishing grounds;
d.
which act as natural buffers against shore erosion, strong winds
and storm floods;
on which people are dependent for their livelihood.

12.

Coral reefs, characterized by one or any combinations of the following conditions:

c.

a.
with 50% and above live coralline cover;
b.
spawning and nursery grounds for fish;
which act as natural breakwater of coastlines.

In this connection, Section 5 of PD 1586 expressly states:

Environmentally Non-Critical Projects. All other projects, undertakings and areas not
declared by the President as environmentally critical shall be considered as non-critical and shall
not be required to submit an environmental impact statement. The National Environmental
Protection Council, thru the Ministry of Human Settlements may however require non-critical
projects and undertakings to provide additional environmental safeguards as it may deem
necessary.
The Artica Sports Dome in Langub does not come close to any of the projects or areas
enumerated above. Neither is it analogous to any of them. It is clear, therefore, that the said
project is not classified as environmentally critical, or within an environmentally critical area.
Consequently, the DENR has no choice but to issue the Certificate of Non-Coverage. It becomes
its ministerial duty, the performance of which can be compelled by writ of mandamus, such as
that issued by the trial court in the case at bar.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 33, in Civil Case No. 28,133-2000, granting the writ

of mandamus and directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to issue in
favor of the City of Davao a Certificate of Non-Coverage, pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1586 and related laws, in connection with the construction of the Artica Sports Dome, is
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ., concur.

i[1] Rollo, pp. 9-30.

ii[2] Ibid., pp. 31-43.
iii[3] Ibid., p. 42.
iv [4] Gonzales v. Chavez, 205 SCRA 816, 830 (1992); Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, 193 SCRA 158, 176 (1991).
v

[5] RA 7160, Section 15. Political and Corporate Nature of Local Government Units. Every local
government unit created or recognized under this Code is a body politic and corporate endowed with
powers to be exercised by it in conformity with law. As such, it shall exercise powers as a political
subdivision of the National Government and as a corporate entity representing the inhabitants of its
territory.

vi[6] Department of Public Services Labor Unions v. Court of Industrial Relations, 1 SCRA 316, 319
(1961).
vii[7] Blaquera v. Alcala, 295 SCRA 366, 425 (1998).
viii[8] Tiu San v. Republic, 96 Phil. 817, 820 (1955).
ix[9] Lidasan v. Commission on Elections, 21 SCRA 496, 506 (1967)
x

[10] General Welfare. Every local government unit shall exercise the powers expressly granted, those
necessarily implied therefrom, as well as powers necessary, appropriate, or incidental for its efficient
and effective governance, and those which are essential to the promotion of the general welfare. Within
their respective territorial jurisdictions, local government units shall ensure and support, among other
things, the preservation and enrichment of culture, promote health and safety, enhance the right of the
people to a balanced ecology, encourage and support the development of appropriate and self-reliant
scientific and technological capabilities, improve public morals, enhance economic prosperity and
social justice, promote full employment among their residents, maintain peace and order, and preserve
the comfort and convenience of their inhabitants.

xi[11] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 295 SCRA 89, 96 (1998).
xii[12] Supra.
xiii[13] Supra.
xiv [14] Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2(3). Local Government refers to the political subdivisions
established by or in accordance with the Constitution.
xv[15] Civil Code of the Philippines, Book 1, Chapter 3, Art. 44. The following are juridical persons:
(1)

The State and its political subdivisions; x x x

xvi[16] Administrative Code of 1987, Section 2 (1) Government of the Republic of the Philippines refers
to the corporate governmental entity through which the functions of the government are exercised
throughout the Philippine, including, save as the contrary appears from the context, the various arms
through which political authority is made effective in the Philippines, whether pertaining to the
autonomous regions, the provincial, city, municipality or barangay subdivisions or other forms of local
government.
xvii[17] MOF Company, Inc. v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 149280, May 9, 2002.
xviii[18] Jacutin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 140604, March 6, 2002.
xix[19] Herbosa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119087, January 25, 2002.